Cargando…

Is Nonoperative Treatment Appropriate for All Patients With Type 1 Tibial Spine Fractures? A Multicenter Study of the Tibial Spine Research Interest Group

BACKGROUND: Type 1 tibial spine fractures are nondisplaced or ≤2 mm–displaced fractures of the tibial eminence and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion that are traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 fractures do not carry a significant risk of associated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shimberg, Jilan L., Leska, Tomasina M., Cruz, Aristides I., Ellis, Henry B., Patel, Neeraj M., Yen, Yi-Meng, Schmale, Gregory A., Mistovich, R. Justin, Fabricant, Peter D., Ganley, Theodore J., Green, Daniel W., Johnson, Benjamin, Kushare, Indranil, Lee, R. Jay, McKay, Scott D., Milbrandt, Todd A., Rhodes, Jason, Sachleben, Brant, Traver, Jessica L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9168882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35677019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221099572
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Type 1 tibial spine fractures are nondisplaced or ≤2 mm–displaced fractures of the tibial eminence and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion that are traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 fractures do not carry a significant risk of associated injuries and therefore do not require advanced imaging or additional interventions aside from immobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We reviewed 52 patients who were classified by their treating institution with type 1 tibial spine fractures. Patients aged ≤18 years with pretreatment plain radiographs and ≤ 1 year of follow-up were included. Pretreatment imaging was reviewed by 4 authors to assess classification agreement among the treating institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups to ensure that outcomes represented classic type 1 fracture patterns. Any patient with universal agreement among the 4 authors that the fracture did not appear consistent with a type 1 classification were assigned to the type 1+ (T1+) group; all other patients were assigned to the true type 1 (TT1) group. We evaluated the rates of pretreatment imaging, concomitant injuries, and need for operative interventions as well as treatment outcomes overall and for each group independently. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria; 40 were in the TT1 group, while 8 were in the T1+ group, indicating less than universal agreement in the classification of these fractures. Overall, 12 (25%) underwent surgical treatment, and 12 (25%) had concomitant injuries. Also, 8 patients required additional surgical management including ACL reconstruction (n = 4), lateral meniscal repair (n = 2), lateral meniscectomy (n = 1), freeing an incarcerated medial meniscus (n = 1), and medial meniscectomy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The classification of type 1 fractures can be challenging. Contrary to prior thought, a substantial number of patients with these fractures (>20%) were found to have concomitant injuries. Overall, surgical management was performed in 25% of patients in our cohort.